2025 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, David Nelmark, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Schumacher, P.J., and Badding and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Badding, J.  (14 pages)

            Charles Hasselmann appeals the denial of his application for postconviction relief that alleged claims of ineffective assistance of defense counsel and actual innocence.  He also raises a new ineffective-assistance claim on appeal.  OPINION HOLDS: We find that defense counsel did not breach any essential duties, there is not clear and convincing evidence to support Hasselmann’s actual innocence claim, and there is not a sufficient record for us to review the new postconviction and appellate ineffective-assistance claim.  Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s decision denying Hasselmann’s application for postconviction relief.

    Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Webster County, Angela L. Doyle, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Schumacher, P.J., Langholz, J., and Bower, S.J.  Opinion by Bower, S.J.  (7 pages)

    Lakendrick Mosley appeals his conviction for murder in the first degree, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jury’s verdict.  OPINION HOLDS: Upon our review, we affirm. 
 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Marshall County, Bethany Currie, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., Buller, J., and Vogel, S.J.  Opinion by Vogel, S.J. (11 pages)

            A defendant appeals his convictions, arguing several improper statements warrant a new trial and insufficient evidence supports his child-endangerment convictions.  OPINION HOLDS: The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the mistrial motions because its curative instructions remedied any potential unfairness, and substantial evidence supports the defendant’s child-endangerment convictions.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Michael D. Huppert (dismissal) and Scott D. Rosenberg (summary judgment), Judges.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Ahlers, P.J., and Badding and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Langholz, J.  (11 pages)

            Charles and Karen Buel appeal the district court’s dismissal of their negligence claims against Shane Schuler for untimely service and its grant of summary judgment on their underinsured-motorist claim against their insurer, Nationwide Agribusiness Insurance Company, based on their inability to recover against Schuler.  OPINION HOLDS: We agree that the Buels have not shown good cause for failing to serve Schuler by the ninety-day deadline.  When resisting dismissal, the Buels offered only vague descriptions of efforts to serve Schuler, provided no concrete details about what investigative steps were taken or when, and could not explain significant gaps between attempts at service.  The Buels failed to preserve error on their argument that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on their claim against Nationwide.  None of their arguments on appeal were made to or considered by the district court.  So we cannot consider them for the first time on appeal.  We thus affirm the dismissal of the Buels’ suit.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Valerie L. Clay, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Greer, P.J., and Langholz and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Langholz, J.  (3 pages)

            Dorian Parkinson II appeals the denial of postconviction relief from his convictions for domestic abuse assault causing bodily injury by strangulation, domestic abuse assault causing bodily injury, and interference with official acts.  He argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel from his defense counsel relating to his guilty plea.  OPINION HOLDS: On our de novo review, we agree with the district court that Parkinson has failed to prove that his counsel breached an essential duty.  We thus affirm with a memorandum opinion under Iowa Court Rule 21.26.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Poweshiek County, Joel D. Yates, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Ahlers, P.J., and Badding and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Badding, J.  (11 pages)

            A landscaping company appeals from a declaratory judgment finding its insurance coverage for property damage and lost business income was voided by material misrepresentations.  OPINION HOLDS: Upon our de novo review, we agree with the district court that the insured made a material misrepresentation about at least one claimed loss.  We therefore affirm the court’s ruling declaring the policy void.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Webster County, Adria Kester, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Greer, P.J., and Langholz and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, P.J.  (12 pages)

            A jury found Joseph Hill guilty of two counts of second-degree sexual abuse, four counts of child endangerment resulting in bodily injury, and one count of child endangerment.  Hill challenges his convictions on appeal, arguing (1) his motion for mistrial should have been granted after a witness from the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services testified about a “founded” child abuse assessment on the same allegations that were the basis for one of the criminal charges and (2) there is not substantial evidence supporting his convictions.  OPINION HOLDS: Due to Hill’s failure to comply with Iowa Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.903(2)(a)(8)(3), we do not consider his arguments about the sufficiency of the evidence.  Following our review, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Hill’s motion for mistrial and affirm. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Paul D. Scott, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Schumacher, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Buller, J.  (7 pages)

            Buyers appeal the district court’s summary judgment order on a petition for recovery of real property.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the buyers demonstrated no material factual dispute as to the seller’s right to forfeiture of the real estate contract, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Mitchell County, Elizabeth Batey, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Ahlers, P.J., Badding, J., and Potterfield, S.J.  Opinion by Potterfield, S.J. (9 pages)

            Following her conviction for possession of a controlled substance (marijuana), first offense, Carrisa Mensch challenges the denial of her motion to suppress evidence.  Mensch concedes the deputy who stopped her vehicle had probable cause for the stop; she argues her state and federal constitutional rights were violated when he unlawfully extended the duration of the seizure while engaging in a blended inquiry.  Mensch also challenges the search of her vehicle, arguing her admission there was marijuana inside cannot serve as the basis for the search because the statements occurred only after the traffic stop was illegally extended and her consent to search was not voluntarily given.  OPINION HOLDS: Because Deputy Steinberg did not unlawfully extend the stop and Mensch’s admission there was marijuana in the vehicle gave him probable cause to search under the automobile exception, we affirm the district court’s denial of Mensch’s motion to suppress.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Patrice Eichman, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Tabor, P.J., and Ahlers and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, J.  (5 pages)

            Champ Thaxton challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction for operating while intoxicated, second offense.  Thaxton does not dispute that he operated a vehicle, but he contends the evidence was insufficient to establish that he was “under the influence” of alcohol.  OPINION HOLDS: The State presented sufficient evidence to establish that Thaxton was under the influence of alcohol.  We reject Thaxton’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence and affirm his conviction.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Becky Goettsch, Judge.  APPEAL DISMISSED.  Considered without oral argument by Ahlers, P.J., Badding, J., and Potterfield, S.J.  Opinion by Potterfield, S.J.  (4 pages)

            As part of a global plea agreement involving five cases, Tyler Goode pled guilty to domestic abuse assault causing injury in SRCR373877—the only case at issue in this appeal.  Goode argues he entered his guilty plea involuntarily and the prosecutor breached the plea agreement by not making the sentencing recommendations to which they agreed.  OPINION HOLDS: Because Goode did not file a motion in arrest of judgment and because his real complaint is with the sentence he received in AGCR376051, which is not properly before us, there is no potential we could provide Goode relief on either of his claims.  Therefore, Goode lacks good cause to bring this appeal.  We dismiss.

    Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Andrea J. Dryer, Judge.  AFFIRMED ON APPEAL AND CROSS-APPEAL; REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.  Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., Sandy, J., and Vogel, S.J.  Opinion by Tabor, C.J.  (14 pages)

    Summers’ Enterprise, Inc., sued Hudson Land Development, LLC, and Artesian Earthworks, LLC, to foreclose a mechanic’s lien against real estate that Hudson owned.  The district court entered judgment for Summers.  Hudson appeals, raising three claims: (1) Summers and Artesian did not enter an oral contract; (2) Iowa Code section 572.11 (2020) bars the mechanic’s lien against Hudson; and (3) all sums to which Artesian was entitled under its contract with Hudson were paid before Summers filed its mechanic’s lien.  On cross-appeal, Summers claims it has a right to interest on the judgment at a rate of two percent per month.  Summers also seeks appellate attorney fees.  OPINION HOLDS: On the first claim, we decline to reach the merits because Hudson failed to preserve error.  On Hudson’s remaining claims, we reach the same conclusions as the district court.  Thus, we affirm the judgment foreclosing the mechanic’s lien.  We also deny Summers’s cross-appeal claim.  Finally, we remand for the district court to order Hudson to pay Summers’s reasonable appellate attorney fees.